301 F.

2d 140

UNIVERSAL INCORPORATED, Appellee,

v.
KAY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Appellant.
No. 8479.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 11, 1962.
Decided March 22, 1962.

Ralph L. Chappell, New York City (Norman Block, Greensboro, N. C.,

Harry Jacobson, Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, and Block, Meyland
& Lloyd, Greensboro, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
D. D. Allegretti, Chicago, Ill. (Will Freeman and Blair, Freeman &
Molinare, Chicago, Ill., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOPER, BOREMAN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
SOPER, Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought to enjoin infringement of United States Patent No.
2,480,667 issued on August 30, 1949 to William H. Neely upon an application
filed February 21, 1944. The patent covers elongated corrugated wire springs
for upholstered seat structures. The plaintiff is Universal Incorporated, an Ohio
corporation, which is the assignee and owner of the patent. It has its principal
place of business at Bedford, Ohio, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of corrugated wire springs throughout the United States. The defendant is Kay
Manufacturing Corporation, a New York corporation, with its principal place of
business in Brooklyn. It is engaged in the same line of business as the plaintiff
and for that purpose maintains a plant at High Point, North Carolina.

In the manufacture of cushioned seat structures, springs are mounted in parallel

lines across an open frame with padding and an upholstery cover stretched over
them. The specification of the patent, in its description of the patented spring,
states at the outset that when assembled the spring "should be free of stiffness
in localized areas and readily yield to the load applied when in use." To this end

the patent discloses that the springs are elongated sinuously corrugated wires.
Each spring comprises a body portion designated as the load supporting
member with an attachment to the frame at one end, and a V-shaped supporting
member for the body portion consisting of a short arm and long arm. The short
arm of the V is coupled with an angular offset to the rear face of the supporting
spring member between its ends, and the long arm is extended rearwardly of the
body portion and attached to the frame. The result is a load carrying spring,
supported at each end, from which a cantilever-like V-shaped portion extends
rearwardly. The specification states that a spring so constructed will not be
deformed when under load in the area in which the load bearing member and
the supporting member are coupled together, but the latter will yield
sufficiently to ensure full flexibility of the former so that it will properly
contact the load and readily yield to its shape.
3

Figure 7 of the patent portrays the profile of the spring showing the load
carrying member 26 and the V-shaped supporting member 27 with its short arm
38 and its long arm 37.

4
NOTE:
OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT
VIEWABLE Figure 1 of the patent displays the end spring fitted in the frame of the
back of an upholstered chair. A series of the springs are placed side by side
longitudinally in the back of the chair. In the seat of the chair two V-shaped spring
supporting members are shown.
5
NOTE:
OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT
VIEWABLE
Claim 1 of the patent is as follows:
6

"1. A wire spring for cushioned seat structures comprising an elongated,

sinuously corrugated body portion, and an independent V-shaped sinuously
corrugated supporting portion for said body portion, said V-shaped supporting
portion including a short arm and an arm of substantial length, the short arm
including an angularly offset end portion engaged with the rear face of said
body portion and rigidly coupled therewith between the opposite ends thereof,
and the long arm being extended from said short arm rearwardly of said body
portion in spaced relation with respect thereto, said angularly offset end portion
of said short arm effecting rearward spacing of the apex of said V-shaped
supporting means from said elongated, corrugated body portion."

The defendant's product which is alleged to infringe, is designed for the same
general purpose as the spring of the patent. It is constructed of corrugated wire

springs mounted in parallel lines on a frame in the back of the chair. An end
view of the defendant's spring is depicted in the following drawing. NOTE:
OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT
VIEWABLE
8

The defendant's spring is made of a single strip of flat corrugated material. The
back rest or load bearing member 4 and the supporting member 1 are integrated
as one continuous piece but the latter is bent back and interlaced with the
former so as to overlie it from the end to the point 3 where it passes across the
back rest and is held by a clip. After passing through the clip it is bent to form a
V-shaped member of which, as in the patented device, one arm is attached to
the back rest and the other arm to the frame of the seat structure. The
defendant's V is a continuation of the wire which forms the back rest and,
therefore, is not literally within the terms of Claim 1 which speaks of "an
independent V-shaped sinuously corrugated supporting portion for said body
portion"; but the defendant's spring in effect has a V with a short arm that is the
portion from Clip 3 to the apex of the V and a long arm proceeding thence to
the frame.

The defendant's main argument seems to be that its structure does not infringe
the patent. In presenting this contention the defendant relies in passing to some
extent upon the structural differences in the competing products above
mentioned. Having in mind the terms of Claim 1, the defendant says that it
does not have an independent V-shaped supporting member composed both of a
short arm, which includes an offset portion rigidly coupled with the rear face of
the load bearing member and also a long arm extending rearwardly of the load
bearing member. Defendant argues that its V is not independent of the body
portion but is integral with it in that the long arm of the V is interlaced with the
body portion and runs to the upper end thereof and returns above and not under
the face of the body portion. Defendant says also that one arm of its V is
attached or clipped to the body portion at a single point and does not have an
offset as does the short arm of the V of the patent.

10

In our view these differences are immaterial to the question of infringement.

For the purposes which the patent is intended to serve the Defendant's V has a
short arm which extends from the apex of the V to the clip and since this arm is
rigidly coupled to the body portion at the body clip it may fairly be regarded to
end at this point so that the defendant's V is actually independent of the body
portion in the same way as the V of the patented device. We think also that
defendant's structure has the equivalent of the angular offset of the Neely
spring. The extension of defendant's wire through the clip to the end of the
spring and the doubling of it back above instead of below the body portion

serves the same purpose as the offset of the short arm of the V in the patent.
11

Defendant's main reliance in its argument of non-infringement does not rest,

however, on these structural differences but upon the contention that the
accused structure does not accomplish the basic purpose of the patent to furnish
a spring free of stiffness in localized areas. Indeed, the defendant goes further
and says that the plaintiff has abandoned this purpose in the commercial spring
which it makes and sells to the trade.1 This phase

12
NOTE:
OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT
VIEWABLE of the controversy is best understood by reference to Plaintiff's Exhibit
11 which consists of three identical springs of the plaintiff, Plaintiff's Exhibit 11A,
and one spring of the defendant, Plaintiff's Exhibit 11B, which are mounted in
parallel lines in a model of the frame of the back of a seat structure. The springs of
the plaintiff, 11A, vary from the spring depicted in Figure 7 of the patent in that
there are four loops of the offset portion of the supporting spring above the V which
are double with the body portion and are coupled by two clips, one at either end of
the double area, to the body portion. In Figure 7 of the patent only two adjacent
loops are coupled with one clip. Claim 2 of the patent, however states that at least
two straight portions of the short arm of the V are rigidly coupled to the body
portion.
13

Defendant's accused spring, 11B, differs somewhat in construction but serves

the same purpose. Above the coupling of the arm of the V to the top of the
springs there are six double loops. In other words, the area above the V in both
springs is reinforced, in plaintiff's 11A by the doubling of four loops, and in
defendant's 11B by the doubling of six loops. So similar are the two
commercial structures in purpose and in function that the defendant admits that
its structure is equivalent to the plaintiff's and that infringement is made out if
the plaintiff's spring embodies the invention. Defendant, however, vigorously
contends that the spring, 11A, departs from the concept of the patent in that
reinforcement of the upper part of the spring by doubling the loops creates an
area that is stiffer than other parts of the spring. The evidence clearly
demonstrates this fact. Not only is it obvious that doubling the loops increases
the resistance but the experts on the opposing sides at the trial below agreed
that the reinforced area has at least double the stiffness of the same area in the
spring depicted in the patent. The District Judge nevertheless held that the
purpose of the patent was served by the commercial structure and after careful
examination of the evidence we find ourselves in agreement with the
conclusion. The patent speaks, it is true, of freedom of the springs from
stiffness in localized areas but it adds that the spring should readily yield to the
load. It is common knowledge, as the evidence shows, that the pressure of the

sitter upon the back of the seat varies at different points of the body. The
springs support a heavier load at the shoulder blades than at the lower part of
the body and consequently the sitter experiences no stiffness simply because
the spring is stronger at the top than at the bottom. There is no objectionable
hard spot at the point of coupling which, according to the evidence, the
invention was designed to avoid. We think with the District Judge that it is
reasonable to interpret the language of the patent in relation to its purpose to
make a seat which would seem flexible rather than stiff to the user. The
evidence shows that the purpose was accomplished by the commercial success
in the trade of both of the competing springs. The upper part was made stronger
to meet the heavy load at this point and also to make the trim of the upholstery
more compact and firm to conform to stylistic changes but still sufficiently
flexible to yield to the load.
14

The meaning of hard spots and the desirability of avoiding them in a seat were
shown in the patent office proceedings when the inventor was called upon to
distinguish his invention from prior patents, notably the French patent to Ortet,
No. 621,947 of 1927, and his own prior patent No. 2,308,772 of 1943. These
earlier patents showed that the use of a V-shaped spring was old in the
manufacture of furniture and Neely's application for the patent in suit, No.
2,480,667, was accordingly rejected by the Examiner. His decision, however,
was reversed upon appeal to the Board of Appeals in the patent office which
accepted the distinction Neely had presented to the Examiner. In his
correspondence with the Examiner Neely again and again stressed the presence
of stiffness in the springs of Ortet and of his prior patent 772 and the absence of
this stiffness in the spring described in his pending application. He showed that
in the Ortet spring the V was pivotally and not rigidly connected with the body
portion and that this arrangement would produce a local hard spot in the spring;
and he also showed that in his prior patent 772 a V was connected with the load
bearing member at its lower end and that the supporting spring in the upper end
ran straight from the load bearing member to the frame of the seat creating a
hard spot at the point of connection. In contrast with this structure the inventor
pointed out that the hard spot was avoided in his new invention by the rigid
coupling of the short arm of the V to the body portion between its ends and by
the acute angle of the V so as to give flexibility to the supporting member and
thus enable the spring to yield to the load while conforming to it through a
mutual exchange of the bending stresses between its members.

15

The Board of Appeals upheld this argument. It accepted his statement that the
straight supporting member in his patent 772 would produce a localized
stiffened area resulting in a hard spot to correct which excessive amounts of
padding were needed and that this defect had been overcome in the patent in

suit. The patent office did not have before it the plaintiff's commercial structure
depicted in PX 11A and hence it did not have an opportunity to pass on the
question whether the plaintiff's commercial structure is in accord with the
teaching of the patent; but its decision supports our conclusion that when the
patent speaks of localized stiff areas it means hard spots objectionable to the
user and does not indicate that all parts of the spring shall have the same
flexibility. The defendant had the plaintiff's springs, 11A, before it when it put
its spring, 11B, upon the market, copying the plaintiff's structure with
immaterial variations. Infringement of the patent is made out.
16

We come then to the defense that the patent in suit did not involve invention in
view of the disclosures of the prior art. We confine our discussion to three
patents which form the basis of defendant's argument, i. e. Neely's patent 772 of
1943, the French patent to Compin, No. 387,701, of 1908, and the U. S. Patent
to Fryer, No. 2,034,092 of 1936. These patents clearly show that both flat and
corrugated wire springs in seat structures were well known to the prior art and
also that V or U-shaped supporting springs had been used to produce a
cantilever effect. The Neely patent 772, as we have seen, was before the patent
office and was specifically mentioned by the Board of Appeals in its opinion as
a device with undesirable hard spots produced by a supporting spring at the top
of the seat which ran without an intervening V directly from a point in the body
portion to the top of the frame. At the bottom of the spring there was a V-shape
member coupled to the end of the body portion and to the frame at the bottom.
In the patent in suit, however, Neely moved the V from the bottom to a point
between the ends of the body portion and cured the defect in his 772 invention
and the Board of Appeals held that this change involved patentability.

17

The defendant relies, however, in its argument of invalidity more particularly

on the Compin and Fryer patents which were not before the patent office, rating
Compin first and Fryer second in importance. Compin shows the use of two Ushaped supporting wire band springs in the seat rather than in the back portion
of the structure. Turned sidewise so as to resemble the back rather than the seat
of a chair, the figures in the patent show two U's one attached to each end of
the body portion.2 In this area the wire is doubled somewhat like the doubling
of the loops in the commercial spring of the parties to this suit. One arm of the
U is coupled to the rear of the body portion at a point about one-fourth of the
distance from its ends and runs with additional coupling thence to the end
thereof. The other arm of the U is attached to the frame. The general similarity
between this structure and those as shown in the commercial springs, PX 11A
and 11B, is obvious; but the differences become significant when it is realized
that seemingly slight changes in structure have important bearing upon the
comfort of the user of the seat as in Neely's elimination of the hard spots in his

earlier structure. We notice in Compin that straight wire bands are used where
Neely employs corrugated wire. In Compin the supporting springs are placed in
the seat at the sides and not in the center where the greater weight is located. In
Neely's the spring is stronger in the shoulder blade area of greater resistance. In
Compin the arm of the U comes in contact and is coupled with the body portion
in as nearly parallel a position as possible with the body portion. There is no
mention as in Neely's that this arm of the V (or U) should have an angular
offset portion or that the coupling of the arm to the body portion should be
placed between opposite ends thereof. There is also the important difference
between the structures that in Compin the end of the load bearing member is
rigidly attached to the frame of the seat A-502, whereas in Neely the end of the
load bearer is free and only the long arm of the V-shaped supporting spring is
attached to the frame.
18

In the Fryer patent we find a load bearing spring of straight and not corrugated
wire joined to the frame at each end only by fabric. It is supported by two Vshaped springs of which one arm is a continuation of the end of the load bearer
bent under and clipped to the load bearer, while the other arm is attached to the
end of the frame. The two V's overlap and together underlie the entire seat and
their apices are coupled together in the center by a coiled spring. The
differences in detail between this structure and that in the patent in suit are
apparent.

19

It is obvious even to the casual observer that the relation between the load
bearer spring and the supporting spring, and the relation between these two
springs and the frame of the seat structure are not the same in the cited patents
of the prior art as they are in the patent in suit and that the results produced
will, therefore, not be the same. This conclusion indeed is supported by the
testimony of the defendant's principal witness, an expert with long practical
experience in the business, who agreed that structural changes of this kind
produce different reactions at least in degree. One who achieves significant
functional improvements in mechanisms already in use need not be barred from
patent protection merely because the result was attained by a seemingly slight
or simple innovation. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co.,
261 U.S. 45, 43 S.Ct. 322, 67 L.Ed. 523.

20

The practical experience of both parties to the suit who are active competitors
of the trade attests the value of the Neely structure in the business world. So far
as we know the structures depicted in the Compin and Fryer patents were not
manufactured while the Neely idea has been exploited with great success. The
defendant urges that this success was due to the business acumen and sagacity
of the plaintiff's executive officials rather than the merits of its product and this

may be true in a measure. Nevertheless, business commercial success may

properly be weighed as one factor in considering the question of invention.
Hutzler Bros. Co. v. Sales Affiliates, 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 260, 267; Florence-Mayo
Nuway Co. v. Hardy, 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 778, 781; cf. B. F. Goodrich Company v.
United States Rubber Company, 4 Cir., 244 F.2d 468.
21

In the present instance particularly the value of the invention is shown by the
action of the defendant itself who, guided by long and successful experience in
the manufacture of furniture springs, incorporated the idea of the patent in suit
in its own line of goods after the plaintiff had demonstrated its advantages to
the purchasing public.

22

The plaintiff is also entitled to the benefits of the statute, 35 U.S.C. 282,
which declares that a patent issued by the Patent Office shall be presumed valid
and places the burden of establishing invalidity on the party asserting it. We do
not think as the plaintiff contends that an infringer must prove invalidity
beyond a reasonable doubt. The cases on which the plaintiff relies for this rule,
to wit: Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 301 U.S. 168, 57 S.Ct. 675, 81 L.Ed.
983, and Radio Corporation of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, 293
U.S. 1, 54 S.Ct. 752, 78 L.Ed. 1453, were cases in which priority of discovery
of the same invention was the issue rather than invalidity by reason of relevant
disclosures of the prior art. Nevertheless, the presumption accorded by the
statute is entitled to weight in this case strengthened to some extent by the more
than usual consideration given to the problem of patentability in the Patent
Office, Baker-Cammack Hosiery Mills v. Davis Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 550, and
weakened to some extent by the fact that the Patent Office did not have before
it such prior art references as the Compin and Fryer patents. cf. Artmoore Co.
v. Dayless Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 208 F.2d 1, 4. However, the Patent Office did have
before it the Neely patent 772, above described, and also the Nelems patent No.
2,203,598 of 1940. The latter was unlike Compin in that the load bearer
followed a curve instead of a straight line but it did disclose the important
cantilever effect of two U-shaped supporting springs of which one arm was
attached to the end of the load bearer and the other was attached to the frame.
Notwithstanding these conclusions the patent in suit was granted obviously
because of the differences in its structure which contributed to its practical
success.

23

Taking into consideration the presumption of validity arising from the issuance
of the patent, the differences between the structure it disclosed and those shown
in prior patents, and the demonstrated success of the competing products
manufactured by the parties to this suit, we conclude that the District Judge was
justified in upholding the validity of the patent.

24

Affirmed.

Notes:
1

The perspective view on Page 144 of a representative type of the three springs
in issue may be helpful in demonstrating their distinguishing characteristics. In
each instance: a. is the load bearing member and b. is the V-shaped supporting
member; in application points 1 and 2 are fastened to the frame of the seat back,
and the arm ending at 3 remains free save for the restraint of the covering
upholstery
A. represents the spring as illustrated in the patent, with the V-shaped
supporting member coupled rigidly to the load bearer at two adjacent straight
portions of the corrugations by an angular offset of the short arm of the V one
loop in length.
B. represents the more commercially successful spring of the patentee, with the
angular offset of the short arm of the V extended along the rear face of the free
end of the load bearer by two additional loops (in this instance) and coupled
with the load bearer at each end of the offset, thus stiffening the resistance to
pressure of the free end.
C. represents the defendant's claimed infringing spring, wherein the supporting
V-shaped member is formed by bending the load bearer back over its own
surface to form a doubling of the loops, by clipping the bent-back portion to the
load bearer, and from that point by shaping it into a supporting V.

The patent in suit speaks of V-shaped or U-shaped springs as interchangeable